TEAM CODE: NMDC/L/048

1st NATIONAL MEMORIAL DRAFTING COMPETITION, 2020

Before

THE SUPREME COURT

OF

SINDHIA

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

SECTION 109, 306, 504, 506, 499 OF SINDIA PENAL CODE

YUVA SHAKTI MORCHA

(Prosecution)

Vs

TARAN KOHAR & ORS.

(Defence)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...........................................................................................................V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..............................................................................................IX

STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................................X

ISSUES....................................................................................................................................XI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..................................................................................................XII

BODY OF ARGUMENTS..............................................................................................................1

1. SPL IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW..................................................................1

1.1. Substiantial Queries of Law of General Importance..........................................1

1.2. Matter of Public Importance................................................................................4

1.2.1. No suicide note found in his flat.......................................................................4

2. A1 IS LIABLE UNDER §§ 109 AND 306 OF SINDIANPENAL CODE, 1860…………........7

2.1. A1 is liable for Abetment under § 109 SPC, 1860...............................................8

2.1.1. Abetment of Suicide under instigation.............................................................8

2.1.2. Abetment of Suicide by engaging with other people in the industry...............9

2.2. A1 is liable under § 306 for Abetment of suicide.......................................10

2.2.1. A2 intentionally insulted A1 with intent to provoke him...............................11

3.A1 Is Liable Under §§ 504 and 506 Of Sindian Penal Code, 1860………………………13

3.1. A1 is liable § 504 of SPC, 1860 for intentional insult................................13

3.2. A1 is liable for punishment under § 506 for criminal intimidation.........14

TABLE OF CONTENTS1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | II

4. A1 Is Liable Under § 499 Of Sindian Penal Code, 1860………………………………….15

PRAYER.................................................................................................................................XIV

TABLE OF CONTENTS1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | III

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

A1 Accused 1

Bom Bombay

Crim LJ Criminal Law Journal

Cal Calcutta

Del Delhi

Guj Gujarat

HP Himachal Pradesh

Kant Karnataka

Raj Rajasthan High Court

Mad Madras

Mys Mysore

All Allahabad High Court

Ori Orissa

Ors. Others

Art Article

No. Numbers

Lah Lahore

SLP Special Leave Petition

SPC Sindian Penal Code

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SC Supreme Court

UOI Union Of India

¶ Page Number

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | IV

u/s Under section

v. Versus

§ Section

§§ Sections

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | V

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Achyut Adhicary v. West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 1039. 2

7
Abraham v. State, 1960 Crim LJ (Ker.) 910

Abdul Aziz v. Syed Mohammad Arab, AIR 1935 Cal 736 7

Bhim Rao v. Venkat Rao, AIR 1964 Mys 285 8
Bhagwan Das v. Sadiq Ahmad, AIR 1925 All 318 (1) 8
Brij Lal v. Prem Chand, AIR 1989 SC 1661 4
C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298 3
7
Chakradhar Patnaik v. Benudhar Patnaik, 1973 Cut LT 1186

Clement v. Chivis, (1829) 9 B & C 172. 10

Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 4

1446
Dixon v. Holden, (1869) LR Eq 488. 11
Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78 8
8,6
Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44

Gurbachan Singh v.Satpal Singh, AIR1990 SC 209 5

Guranditta v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Lah 344 8
Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433 5
Habib Khan v. Mazhur-ul-Haque Khan, 18 Crim LJ 463 7
Hukumchand v. Chandmal, AIR 1950 MP 25. 7
Joseph Kurian& Philip Jose v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 4 3
Jugal Kishore v. State of Delhi, (1972) Cr LJ 371 (Del) 7
Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 3
SCC 214
Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 2 SCC 398. 10

Kathi Ranning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123 2

MithaiJoby v. George, (2010) 4 SCC 358 1
Mohd Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 7
Mohammed Sabed Ali v. Thulesvar Borah, 1995 Crim LJ (Gau.) 910 7
Muniaswami Naicker v. P. Kanniappa Naicker, AIR 1950 Mad 273 7
Nareshmarotrao v. UOI, (19950 Cr LJ 96 (Bom) 3
Narottamdaa v. Maganbhai, (1984) Cr LJ 1790 (Guj). 10

Prakash Chandra Bafna v. Oba Ram, 2011 Crim LJ (Raj.) 416 7

Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2003)11 SCC 241 3
Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169 2
RakhalDebnath v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 11 SCC 347 7

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | VI

7
Ramesh Kumar v. SushilaSrivatsava, (1997) Cr LJ 282 (Raj)

Ram Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1995 SC 1965 4

Sadananda v. Lalit Mohan, 1972 Crim LJ (Ori.) 1685 7
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Vipan Kumar, 2015 Crim LJ (HP) 1812 7
Sunilakhaya v. HM Jadwet, AIR 1968 Cal 266 10

Selathu and Ors. v. Unknown, (1948) 2 MLJ 522. 9

State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532 1

State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, (2003) 8 SCC 361. 12
Sohal Lal @ Sohan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2003 SC 4466 3
Sim v. Stretch, (1936) 2 All ER 1237, (1240) 10
State of Karnataka v. Anni Poojary, (2005) Cr LJ 2662 (Kant) 5
Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801 2
VikramJohar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 (6) Scale 794 6
Valmiki Faleiro v. Mrs Lauriana Fernandes, (2005) Cr LJ 2498 (Bom). 10

STATUTES

§107, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, No. 45, Legislative Council, 1860. 3
§ 109, The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Legislative Council, 1860. 3
§ 306, The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Legislative Council, 1860 5
§ 498 A, The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Legislative Council, 1860 5
§ 499, The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Legislative Council, 1860 9
§ 504, The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Legislative Council, 1860 6
§ 506, The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Legislative Council, 1860 6

BOOKS

P.S.A. Pillai, Indian Penal Code (14th Edition, 2019) 3,4,5,9

Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code 21 (33rd ed., 2010) 5&6
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, Vol. 1, 832 (4th ed., Universal Law 2

Publishing, New Delhi, 2010)

Halsbury’s Laws of India, Vol. 35, 564 (2nd ed., Lexis-Nexis Butterworth 2

Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2007)

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | VII

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The prosecution most humbly submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have the necessary

subject matter jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the instant matter under Section 136 of

Sindian Constitution, 1950.

Thereby, the PROSECUTION submits this memorial which sets forth the facts and the laws

on which the claims are based.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition,

2020
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | VIII

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

Mr. Anirudh Singh was a renowned actor in the Shollywood film industry in Sindia. He

belonged to a middle class family living in a small town named “Sapnaganj” in the

peripheries of the state of “Kihar”. He was a man of knowledge and wisdom. He was a top

ranker in his university and his ideas and innovations never failed to mesmerize his

professors. He was a jovial man and never cared for what his peers think for him. He

followed his own will and took his decision without any societal pressures.

.INCIDENT

In 2012 he started his career as a struggling Television actor and his immense talent and

acting skills soon got recognized as a building “star face” in the industry. He was rising

solely due to his own talent and skills but there were some stars that were, in fact, the product

of ‘Nepotism’ (Nepo Kids) in the Industry were not liking it. He was always seen as an

outsider and potential competitor and was never treated as a colleague in the industry. On 25

March 2016, Karma Productions announced that they are doing three films with Anirudh

Singh in the upcoming years. However, later when the trailers of these films released, people

were shocked to see that in place of Anirudh, some “Nepo kids” were doing the films. On

being asked about this, the production house announced in the media that Anirudh was

undisciplined and because of his unprofessional behaviour he lost his films. The Nepo kids

and their puppets in the media industry tried to demean Anirudh by publishing blind articles

and blogs on their platforms. Sometimes, some big producers, even some of the actors also

refused to sign a movie simply because Anirudh was in the lead role.

He worked in almost eight movies after that. He was building a huge fan base and was always

known for his kind and compassionate nature. Soon he started feeling that the industry is not

accepting him. Many times, when he was nominated for the “Filmy Masala Awards” or some

STATEMENT OF FACTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | IX

other similar awards, he was never honoured with the same, even at times when he was the

most deserving nominee for a category. In the beginning of 2020, his tensions and worries

deepened due to the fact that his seven signed movies were taken back by the producers

without any genuine reason in just two months.

He was deeply depressed and tensed. In March 2020, the government of Sindia declared a

nationwide lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and consequently the film industry

was also halted. He was distressed and depressed but was not ready to share it with anyone.

Only a few of his loyal friends knew about his condition and they always tried to boost his

spirit. But every time when he would decide to come out of this situation, the on-going hate

trends against him pushed him in the deep traps of depression. On the tragic day of June 1,

2020, the whole world was left in shock. He was found dead hanging with the ceiling fan as

he left the world by ending his own life.

INVESTIGATION

The police investigation found it to be a case of suicide. A criminal complaint was filed under

section 109, 306, 504 and 506 of the Sindian Penal Code, 1860 against some Shollywood

actors.

STATEMENT OF FACTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | X

ISSUES

1. Whether or not, Special Leave Petition is maintainable in the eyes of law?

2. Whether or not the charges under section 109 and 306 of Sindian Penal Code are

maintainable or not?

3. Whether or not the charges under section 504 and 506 of Sindian Penal Code are

maintainable or not?

4. Whether A1 is liable under section 499 of Sindian Penal Code, 1860?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition,

2020
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | XI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF

LAW

It is humbly submitted before e Hon’ble Supreme Court, that Special Leave Petition under

Article 136 of the Sindian Constitution is maintainable, as the matter involves a substantial

question of law of general public importance. The arbitrary and hasty judgment of the session

court acquitting Arman khan, Aila Kapoor, Ram Kanwar, Karun Pawan and Taran Kohar

(hereinafter A1) liable for abetment of suicide under § 306 Sindian Penal Code (hereinafter

SPC), 1860 has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice and if the SC does not intervene, it

will result in gross injustice. Mr. Anirudh Singh who was a renowned personality in the

country, self-made actor, rising solely due to his talent and a university topper but some stars,

product of nepotism (hereinafter Nepo kids) treated him as an outsider and wanted to

eliminate him from the industry as he was a potential threat to their career.

A1 created such situation around Anirudh Singh which forced him to take such harsh step

and end his own life. The Shollywood biggies forced producers and directors to boycott

Anirudh and sign only Nepo kids in their movies. Such behaviour by the senior actor towards

Anirudh made his life miserable.

Also Anirudh was a jovial man and tackled all problems in his life with a big smile on his

face and according to his closed ones he was a strong person and cannot end his own life,

also there was no suicide note found in his flat which raises some serious questions on the

investigation. The Hon’ble SC should therefore, applying its wide jurisdiction conferred

under Art. 136 of the Constitution of Sindia use corrective measures to correct the wrong

done by the decision of the session court.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition,

2020
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | XII

ISSUE II: A1 ARE LIABLEUNDER THE CHARGES UNDER SECTION 109 AND

306 OF SINDIA PENAL CODE

It is humbly submitted that Shollywood industry (hereinafter A2) is liable for the offence of

abetment of suicide under § 109 and 306 of SPC, 1860 as they had the necessary intention

and knowledge of the consequences of the act they had committed. They created an

atmosphere of worries and tensions around A1 which forced him to take such drastic step.

A2 is liable for instigating and is also liable for abetment under § 306 of SPC as they not only

excluded and eliminated A1 from the industry but also surrounded him with false allegations.

A2 along with its puppets in the media industry tried to demean A1 by publishing blind

articles and blogs on their platform. The reluctant behaviour was so intense that A1

eventually lost his consciousness.

ISSUE III: A1 ARE LIABLE UNDER THE CHARGES UNDER SECTION 504 AND

506 OF SINDIAN PENAL CODE

It is humbly submitted that Shollywood industry (hereinafter A2) is liable under § 504 i.e.

Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace and under § 506 i.e. Punishment

for criminal intimidation of Sindian Penal Code, 1860.The accused must be shown to have

had the intention or knowledge that by such insults, he would be provoking the commission

of an offence.A1 has insulted Mr. Anirudh in every possible manner. Being a threat to nepo

kids’ career due to his immense acting skills, he was always treated as an outsider. He was

insulted by A1. He was not invited in any parties, talk shows, or award shows. He was

boycotted by actors and producers so that he cannot get any work in the industry and forced

to leave the industry.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition,

2020
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | XIII

ISSUE IV: A1 ARE LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION UNDER SECTION 499 OF

SINDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

It is humbly submitted thatA1 is liable for the offence of defamation under § 499 of SPC,

1860 as they had the necessary intention and knowledge of the consequences of the act they

had committed. Mr. Anirudh was rising solely due to his own talent and skills but there were

some stars that were, in fact, the product of ‘Nepotism’ (Nepo Kids) in the Industry were not

liking it. The Nepo kids and their puppets in the media industry tried to demean Anirudh by

publishing blind articles and blogs on their platforms. A few times, some big producers, even

some of the actors also refused to sign a movie simply because Anirudh was in the lead role.

Due to this reluctant behaviour of some Nepo kids toward Anirudh, many producers decided

not to cast the newcomer star Anirudh for their movies simply because they didn’t want to

lose the supports of the established actors. He was deeply depressed and tensed. He was

receiving constant hate messages from unknown people and refused to talk to his friends and

family and was constantly worried about his future

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition,

2020
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | 1

BODY OF ARGUMENTS

1. SPL MAINTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW

(¶ 1.) It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sindia that in the case

of Mathai Joby v. George1 certain guidelines were put forth for the uniformity and restriction

of entertaining SLPs. Here are some guidelines that can be considered for proposal, most of

which have been suggested by Senior Advocate Mr. K.K. Venugopal and approved by the

bench:-

1. “All matters involving substantial queries of law regarding the interpretation of the

Constitution of India.”

2. Substantial queries of law of general importance.

3. All matters of national or public importance.

4. Validity of laws, Central and State

Firstly, this case raises serious substantial queries of law of general importance [1.1];

secondly, Anirudh was a world famous actor and his sudden death left the world in shock and

hence this is a matter of public importance [1.2].

1.1. SUBSTANTIAL QUERIES OF LAW OF GENERAL IMPORTANCE

(¶ 2.) It is humbly submitted that before the Hon’ble Court that the jurisdiction conferred

under Art. 136 on the SC is corrective one and not a restrictive one 2and can be invoked when

a question of law of general public importance arises, 3 by filing Special Leave Petition. It is

well-settled that illegality must not be allowed to be perpetrated and failure by the SC to

interfere with the same would amount to allowing the illegality to be perpetuated, 4 therefore a

1
MithaiJoby v. George, (2010) 4 SCC 358.
2
Haryana State Industrial Corp. v.. Cork Mfg. Co., (2007) 8 SCC 359.
3
Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v.. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314.
4
Pawan Kumar v.. State of Haryana, (2003)11 SCC 241; See also, H.M. Seerv.ai, Constitutional Law of India,
V.ol. 1, 832 (4th ed., Univ.ersal Law Publishing, New Delhi, 2010); See also, Halsbury’s Laws of India, V.ol.
35, 564 (2nd ed., Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2007)

BODY OF ARGUMENTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | 2

duty is enjoined upon the SC to exercise its power by setting right the illegality in the

judgments. Art.136 provides residuary power to the SC to do justice where the court is

satisfied that injustice has been done.5 Illegality should not be allowed to be perpetrated

merely for the sake of upholding technicalities.6

(¶ 3.) The act done by A1 squarely falls under the ambit of abetment by instigation. In the

case of Dowry Death it has been already held by Supreme Court that cruelty towards women

amounts to abetment by instigation. It has been held by the Supreme Court of Sindia that the

conduct of the husband and his relatives in creating such a miserable situation to evolve in

which the deceased has no other recourse than to commit suicide, in fact, amounts to

abetment by instigation.7 Mr. Anirudh was always treated as an outsider and nepo kids

wanted to eliminate him from the industry as he was a potential threat to their career.The

Nepo kids and their puppets in the media industry tried to demean Anirudh by publishing

blind articles and blogs on their platforms and a stigma of being undisciplined and

unprofessional was cemented to his character. Due to this reluctant behavior of some ‘Nepo

kids’ toward Anirudh, he lost many movies. All this pushed him in the deep traps of

depression.

(¶ 4.) § 306 is based on reasonable public policy to prevent other persons’ involment,

insitagation and aiding in termination ones’s life. 8It lead creating circumstances where the

other person was not left with any choice other than to commit suicide is similar to istigation

in termination one’s life.

1.1. MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

5
C.C.E v.. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298; See also, H.M. Seerv.ai, Constitutional Law of India,
V.ol. 2, 845 (4th ed., Univ.ersal Law Publishing, New Delhi, 2010).
6
Janshed Hormusji Wadia v.. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214
7
State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532; RakhalDebnath v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 11 SCC
347
8
Nareshmarotrao v. UOI, (19950 Cr LJ 96 (Bom)

BODY OF ARGUMENTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | 3

(¶ 5.) It is humbly submitted that Mr. Anirudh was one of the world famous, self-made actor

of Shollywood. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether

a substantial question of law is involved in the case. 9Due to his immense talent and acting

skills, he was soon recognized as a budding ‘star face’ in the industry. During his journey in

the television industry, he won many awards and praises. It was the result of his hard-work

that in 2014, his first movie launched on the big screen. Soon he was getting offers from

various big directors and producers. Unlike many nepo kids he was rising solely due to his

talent and skills but soon he realized that he was not treated like a colleague and always seen

as an outsider.

(¶ 6.) Due to their connection with powerful persons in film industry a stigma of

undisciplined and unprofessional was cemented on his character. Many articles were

published to demean Mr. Anirudh. Soon he started receiving hate messages and comments

due to these fake allegation and articles.

(¶ 1.) Pressure by Shollywood biggies and god father of nepo kids Taran Kohar on

production houses to not to cast Mr. Anirudh in their movies, he lost several movies. All this

started draining his mental strength.

1.1.1. No suicide note was found in his flat

(¶ 7.) It is humbly submitted that the SC is not precluded from going into the question of

facts under Art. 136, if it considers it necessary to do so. 10 Art. 136 use the words ‘in any

cause or matter’. This gives widest power to this court to deal with any cause or matter. 11In

the instant case, police did not found any suicide note in his flat which is not very common

that in this type suicide cases. According to his relatives and close friends he was a jovial

man, who faced every problem in the life with a smiling face. It is humbly pleaded that

9
Sumati Dayal v.. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801.
10
Kathi Ranning Rawat v.. The State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123; Achyut Adhicary v.. West Bengal, AIR
1963 SC 1039.
11
Pritam Singh v.. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169.

BODY OF ARGUMENTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | 4

suicide is not very common in the film industry and police should also investigate in that

respect too. Thus, on the above grounds, it is humbly submitted that the petition is

maintainable before the Hon’ble SC of Sindia.

2. A1 IS LIABLE UNDER §§ 109 AND 306 OF SINDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

(¶ 2.) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court of Session that A1 is liable for

firstly, the offence of Abetment under § 109 SPC, 1860 [2.1]; secondly, for abetment of

suicide under § 306 SPC, 1860 [2.2]

2.1. A1 IS LIABLE FOR ABETMENT UNDER § 109 SPC, 1860

(¶ 3.) It is humbly submitted that a person who does not himself commit a crime, may

however command, urge, encourage, induce, request, or help a third person to bring it about

and thereby be guilty of offence of abetment. 12 According to 107 SPC abetment can be done

in three ways first, instigation secondly, engaging in conspiracy thirdly, intentionally aiding.

An offence under § 109 SPC actually constitutes a substantive offence, and it may be so

charged.13It creates a distinct offence though punishable in the context of other offences. 14 In

the present matter, A1 is liable under § 107 SPC as they abetted Mr. Anirudh to commit

suicide firstly, by instigate [2.1.1]; secondly, by engaging with other people in the industry

[2.1.2].

2.1.1. Abetment of suicide by instigation

12
P S A Pilla’s criminal law ( 14th ed.,2019) [hereinafter PSA Pillai].
13
SohalLal @ Sohan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2003 SC 4466.
14
Joseph Kurian & Philip Jose v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 4.

BODY OF ARGUMENTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | 5

(¶ 4.) It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that instigation can be different in

different cases. Whether there was instigation, is a question of fact. 15. Law does not require

instigation to be in a particular form or that it should only be in words. 16 The instigation may

be by conduct.17 In present case the conduct of A1 creating humiliating atmosphere around

Mr. Anirudh is a kind of instigation by conduct. False allegations were made by the

production houses of being unprofessional due to which he lost many movies.

(¶ 5.) When accused, which by his acts or continued course of conduct, creates such

circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, he

can be held guilty of abetment by instigation. 18 Nepo kids tried to demean him everywhere ,

he was not invited in the parties, always treated as an outsider due to all of this he was deeply

depressed and tensed

1.1.1. Abetment of suicide by engaging with other people in the industry

(¶ 6.) It is humbly submitted that conduct of A1 comes under the second leg of the

definition of abetment by engaging with one or more persons in a conspiracy to do a thing.

Nepo kids with Shollywood biggies and their Godfather Taran Kehar plotted against Mr.

Anirudh so he cannot get any work in industry as his talent was a threat for many star kids.

They forced production houses to throw out Mr Anirudh or else they will not work with

them. They made false allegation of being undisciplined and unprofessional on him. The

Nepo kids and their puppets in the media industry tried to demean Anirudh by publishing

blind articles and blogs on their platforms.19

2.1. A1 IS LIABLE UNDER § 306 FOR ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

15
BrijLal v. Prem Chand, AIR 1989 SC 1661.
16
P S A Pillai, supra note , at 224.
17
Ram Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1995 SC 1965.
18
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Gov.t of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 1446.
19
Factsheet, ¶ 3.

BODY OF ARGUMENTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | 6

(¶ 7.) It is humbly submitted that A1 is liable for abetment of suicide. Suicide has not been

declared as a crime by the SCP but attempt to commit suicide and abetment of suicide is

punishable under § 309 and 306 respectively. § 306 of SPC reads as – if any person commits

suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment

of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to

fine. The offence of abetment must confirm to the definition of the term “abetment” given in

the section 107. There must be instigation, cooperation or intentional assistance given to the

would-be suicide. In Gurbachan Singh v Satpal Singh20, the deceased, a newly-wedded girl,

died of burn injuries. There was sufficient evidence about harassment and torture for bringing

insufficient dowry. It was held that the provocations given to deceased were grave and

serious enough for an ordinary Indian woman to kill herself. 21§ 306, SPC, criminalise the

sustained incitement for suicide.22A court can convict a person under § 306 even if he not

charged for cruelty under § 498A, SPC.23

(¶ 8.) Mr. Anirudh was in same situation. Surviving in Shollywood became his biggest

task. The film industry is not kind to outsiders. He was let down by his own industry peers.

He was receiving hate messages on social media due to false allegation plotted on his

character. In past years he lost many movies He started living alone, he stopped talking, only

his close friends knows about mental stress. Situation got worsened due to lockdown in the

country.

2.1.1. A2 intentionally insulted A1 with intent to provoke him

20
Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh, AIR1990 SC 209.
21
PS A Pillai, supra note 4, at 711 ; Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code 21 (33rd ed., 2010) [hereinafter
Ratanlal].
22
Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433.
23
State of Karnataka v. Anni Poojary, (2005) Cr LJ 2662 (Kant).

BODY OF ARGUMENTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | 7

(¶ 9.) In present matter he was not treated properly by other actors, false allegations were

made, defamatory blogs and articles were published, this entire amount to grave provocation.

Man is a social animal and if any person is treated like this is likely to commit suicide.

3. A1 IS LIABLE UNDER §§ 504 AND 506 OF SINDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

(¶ 10.) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sindia that A1 is liable

for firstly, Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace§ 504 SPC, 1860 [3.1];

secondly,Punishment for criminal intimidation§ 506 SPC, 1860 [3.2]

3.1. A1IS LIABLE UNDER § 504 FOR INTENTIONAL INSULT

(¶ 11.) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sindia that A1 is liable

for intentionally insulting Mr. Anirudh with intent to provoke breach of peace under § 504

SPC.24 This provision is attracted where the offender having a specific intent of dishonouring

another person. The essential ingredients of the offence are: (i) the accused person must

intentionally insult another person; (ii) which such that it provokes another person; (iii) there

must be intention or knowledge that such provocation will cause that person to break the

public peace or to commit any other offence. 25 The intentional insult must be of such degree

that should provoke a person to break the public peace or commit any other offence. 26The

submissions to this issue have been set forth in two limbs: A1 intentionally insulted Anirudh

with intent to provoke him [3.1.1]; A1 knew that such provocation will cause Anirudh to

disturb the public peace or to commit any other offence [3.1.2].

3.1.1. A1 intentionally insulted Anirudh with intent to provoke him

24
§ 504, The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Legislativ.e Council, 1860.
25
Mohd Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 ; Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14
SCC 44.
26
V.ikramJohar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 (6) Scale 794.

BODY OF ARGUMENTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | 8

(¶ 12.) It is humbly submitted that the word ‘insult’ occurring in § 504 SPC 27 means “to treat

a person with offensive disrespect or to offer an indignity to a person”. 28 The insult must be

such as to provoke the person insulted.29 Insult cannot merely be caused by the words used,

but also by the way they are spoken. 30 Moreover, the insult may also arise out of the conduct

or action of an offender, irrespective of spoken words.31

(¶ 13.) In present case A1 has insulted Mr. Anirudh in every possible manner. Being a threat

to nepo kids’ career due to his immense acting skills, he was always treated as an outsider.

The accused must be shown to have had the intention or knowledge that by such insults, he

would be provoking the commission of an offence. 32 In Ramesh Kumar v Sushila

Srivatsava33the Rajasthan High Court held that the way in which the accused addressed the

complainant was such that per se goes to show that the person has been insulted and

provocation has been caused to him. Thus, the term “insult” signifies “to treat with offensive

disrespect, to offer indignity to”. Such insult may be inferred not merely from the words used,

but also from the tone and manner in which the words are spoken.34

3.1.2. A1 knew that provocation will cause Anirudh to disturb the public

peace or commit any other offence.

27
§ 504, The Sndian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Legislativ.e Council, 1860.
28
Chakradhar Patnaik v.. Benudhar Patnaik, 1973 Cut LT 1186; Ramesh Kumar v.. Sushila Sriv.astav., (1997)
Crim LJ (Raj.) 282.
29
State of Himachal Pradesh v.. V.ipan Kumar, 2015 Crim LJ (HP) 1812;Sadananda v.. Lalit Mohan, 1972
Crim LJ (Ori.) 1685.
30
Ramesh Kumar v.. Sushila Sriv.astav., (1997) Crim LJ (Raj.) 282.
31
Habib Khan v.. Mazhur-ul-Haque Khan, 18 Crim LJ 463; Prakash Chandra Bafna v.. Oba Ram, 2011 Crim
LJ (Raj.) 416; Hukumchand v.. Chandmal, AIR 1950 MP 25.
32
Jugal Kishore v. State of Delhi, (1972) Cr LJ 371 (Del).
33
Ramesh Kumar v. SushilaSriv.atsav.a, (1997) Cr LJ 282 (Raj).
34
PSA Pillai, supra note 4, at 1090.

BODY OF ARGUMENTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | 9

(¶ 14.) It is humbly submitted that the intention of the offender to provoke, or knowledge that

he is likely to provoke the person insulted to break the public peace or to commit any other

offence is the essence of § 504 SPC.35The court has to evaluate the standard of an ordinary

prudent man and see if the insult caused is such as is ordinarily sufficient to provoke reprisal

by words or deed.36 Furthermore, a self-respecting person can never in the ordinary course

remain calm if humiliating treatment is meted out to him in public. 37The intention and

knowledge can be inferred from the manner in which the words are uttered, the way the

offender acted and whether in the ordinary circumstance such words or actions are sufficient

to cause breach of peace.38

(¶ 15.) In the present case, A1 instigated Anirudh with intent to provoke him to break public

peace or to commit any other offence.A1 created such an atmosphere around Anirudh so that

he left with no other choice to commit suicide. The provocation given by A1 was enough to

make an ordinary prudent man do something undesirable. Therefore, all the facts and

circumstances conclusively convey the intention of A1 to insult Anirudh with intent to

provoke him to break the peace or to commit any other offence.

3.2. A1 IS LIABLE FOR PUNISHMENT UNDER § 506 FOR CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION

35
Mohammed Sabed Ali v.. Thulesv.ar Borah, 1995 Crim LJ (Gau.) 910; Abraham v.. State, 1960 Crim LJ
(Ker.) 910; Muniaswami Naicker v.. P. Kanniappa Naicker, AIR 1950 Mad 273; Abdul Aziz v.. Syed
Mohammad Arab, AIR 1935 Cal 736.
36
Bhim Rao v.. V.enkat Rao, AIR 1964 Mys 285; Emperor v.. Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78.
37
Bhagwan Das v.. Sadiq Ahmad, AIR 1925 All 318 (1).
38
Fiona Shrikhande v.. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 957; Guranditta v.. Emperor, AIR 1930 Lah
344.

BODY OF ARGUMENTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | 10

(¶ 16.) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sindia that A1 is liable

for punishment under §506 SPC, 1860. A bare reading of § 506 discloses that the punishment

prescribed in this section falls in two categories:

1) In simple cases of criminal intimidation, the punishment is imprisonment for a term

up of two years or fine or both, and

2) If the threat to be:

(i) cause death of the threatened person , or grievous hurt, or destruction

of property by fire, or

(ii) to cause an offence to be committed which is punishable with death or

life imprisonment or with imprisonment for a term up to seven years,

or

(iii) To impute unchastity to a woman; then the prescribed

punishment is simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term up to seven

years or fine or both.39

(¶ 17.) A threat of social boycott is not an offence punishable under § 506 SPC. 40Generally,

the threat of social boycott would not fall under definition of criminal intimidation, unless it

more directly affects a person’s reputation.41

(¶ 18.) In the present matter, A1 is liable criminal intimidation§ 503 SPC as they threatened

Mr. Anirudh’s reputation in the eyes of public by plotting false allegation on his character

due to which he lost many movies.

4. A1 IS LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION UNDER §499 OF SINDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

39
PSA Pillai, supra note 4, at1090.
40
In re: Selathu and Ors. v. Unknown, (1948) 2 MLJ 522.
41
PSA Pillai, supra note 4, at 1040.

BODY OF ARGUMENTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | 11

(¶ 19.) It is humbly submitted that next to life, man cares most for his reputation. Reputation

in fact a great internal force in the mind of every man, impelling him to do the things. 42

Rightly, law gives protection to a man’s reputation, as it gives protection to his life and

property. § 499 SPC43 contain provisions protecting a person’s reputation. A man’s reputation

is his property, more valuable than other property.44

(¶ 20.) Essential ingredients of the offence:

1) The making or publishing of an imputation concerning any person;

2) The means of such imputation are words, writing, signs or visible representations;

3) Such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming the reputation of

the person about whom the imputation is published45

(¶ 21.) The offence of defamation is the harm caused to the reputation of a person.

Reputation is what neighbours and others say “what he is”.46 Every individual is entitled to

have a high opinion of one but reputation is the estimation in which one is held by

others.47The “character” signifies reality and reputation merely what is accepted to be reality

at present.48 In State of Bihar v Lal Krishna Advani 49, the Supreme Court held that right to

reputation is an essential facet of an individual’s right to life.

(¶ 22.) The test to check any word is defamatory or not is whether the words would “tend to

lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally”.50

42
Id. at 1036.
43
§ 499, the Sindian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Legislative Council, 1860.
44
Dixon v. Holden, (1869) LR Eq 488.
45
Sunilakhaya v.. HM Jadwet, AIR 1968 Cal 266; Narottamdaa v. Maganbhai, (1984) Cr LJ 1790 (Guj).
46
Id.
47
V.almiki Faleiro v.. Mrs Lauriana Fernandes, (2005) Cr LJ 2498 (Bom).
48
Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 2 SCC 398.
49
State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Adv.ani, (2003) 8 SCC 361.
50
Sim v. Stretch, (1936) 2 All ER 1237, (1240).

BODY OF ARGUMENTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | 12

(¶ 23.) It is humbly submitted that by applying above mentioned test the acts of A1 were

clearly defamatory in the eyes of public. The blind articles and blogs were written by the

nepo kids’ puppets in the media industry to demean him. It is defamatory to publish about

someone that he is man of gross misconduct. 51 False allegations were plotted on the character

of Anirudh by the production houses in the media that he was undisciplined and

unprofessional. Hence, A1 are liable for defamation.

51
Clement v. Chiv.is, (1829) 9 B & C 172.

BODY OF ARGUMENTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | XIV

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most

humbly prayed and implored before this Court, that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge

and declare that:

I. Convict A1 for the offence of Abetment under § 109 of the Sindian Penal Code,

1860; Abetment of suicide under § 306 of the Sindian Penal Code, 1860; for

intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace under § 504 of Sindian Penal

Code, 1860; for criminal intimidation under § 506 of Sindian Penal Code, 1860; and

for defamation under § 499of Sindian Penal Code, 1860.

Also, pass any other order that it may deem fit in the favour of the PROSECUTION to meet the

ends of equity, justice & good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Prosecution shall be duty bound forever pray.

PLACE: Dilli S/d

DATED: 3 August, 2020 Counsel for the Prosecution

PRAYER 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | xv
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION Page | xvi